About your Search

20121006
20121014
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)
in 1986 but are staring us in the face today. first, a much larger and much more dangerous deficit and second, a dramatic increase been income and inequality. old-style tax reform could make both conditions worse. but don't dismiss the old framework lightly. credit for the 1986 reform law belongs to democrats like bill bradley in the senate. just as much as to president reagan. as a member of the house back then, i not only voted for it, but i whipped the votes to make sure it passed. i was on the committee set up by dan rostenkowski to get it done. the approach made a good deal of sense at the time. then, as now, the code was littered with egregious loopholes that needed to be reformed. recall the so-called passive law schools that were in place back then. they allowed wealthy taxpayers to gain the system. someone could invest in a bowling alley and then, if the bowling alley lost money, they could take a write off many times larger than their initial money incestment of their entire income tax liability. we need to get rid of such a gimmicky tax shelter. paring these loopholes al
paying for governor romney opposed tax plan either means going up the deficit or raising taxes on middle-class family. one or the other. then last week mitt romney actually said there's no economist who can say mitt romney's tax plan is $5 trillion. he says that if he says it's not true then it's not true. ok. [applause] it's true then it will not add to the deficit, that leaves one option, asking middle-class families to get rid of the deduction they get for having a home or raising their kids or sending them to college. most folks don't like that idea either. just last week when we were on stage together governor romney decided that instead of changing his plan he would just pretended did not exist. what $5 trillion tax cut? i don't know anything about a $5 trillion tax cut? when he is asked how he will cut the deficit, he says economic the mathematics work by eliminating public funding for pbs. this is not new. this is what he has been saying every time he is asked a question. he says we can cut out pbs. for all you moms and kids, don't worry, somebody finally has found out the big bi
for 10% of the deficit spending increases. lower tax rates across the board and close loopholes. we have three bottom lines. do not raise the deficit, do not raise taxes on the middle class, do not lower the share that is borne by the high income earners. it has been discredited by six other studies and even their own deputy campaign manager acknowledged that it was not correct. >> let's talk about this. you have refused to offer specifics on how you would pay for that 20% across the board. do you actually have the specifics or are you still working on it? >> different than this administration, we want to have a big bipartisan agreement. >> do you have the specifics? >> look at what ronald reagan and tip o'neill did. we raise about $1.20 trillion through income taxes. we forgo about $1.10 trillion in loopholes and deductions. deny those loopholes and deductions to higher income tax payers. so we can lower tax rates across the board. >> i hope i am going to get time to respond. >> we want to work with congress on how best to achieve this. >> no specifics. >> lower tax rate 20%. start with
both to close the deficit. we both submitted our economic proposals to the boston globe. they were sent out four independent economic analysis. found is that i was 67% more effective at cutting the deficit then senator brown. why? because i am willing to make cuts. i am willing to make substantial cuts. i support substantial cuts. i also believe we have to raise revenues. that is what it will take to get serious about our deficit. i truly believe on this one, this is about our children and grandchildren. we cannot leave it to our debts. >> that is time. mr. brown? >> great question. we are in the $16 trillion national debt. we are in another trillion dollar deficit. you cannot keep borrowing to pay our bills. when we are talking about cutting military spending, we have party cut in half a trillion dollars. that affects many people in this room and people watching. i have been battling as a member of the arms services committee to try to find the resources to protect our men and women who are serving. we have sequestration coming up. we are trying to work in a bipartisan effort to step b
and creating jobs. >> your also worried about the deficit. clearly america has large and ever-growing deficits. the proposed a tax cut. that is defecit spending. >> this is a two-step deal. everybody knows we need the big deal. we talk about that and 30 seconds. we're not going to get to the big deal by jumping off the bridge. what we're saying is that it is not the right thing to do to have the largest tax increase in the history of america and to have up $1.20 trillion worth of spending cuts that do not even look at medicare and medicaid across the board without thinking through what is the deal is going to be. anybody from either party should come to a realization that the big deal counts. all we need to do is get a small part of an extension. when you talk about these taxes and spending, it cannot be done by 10 people in the back room. it has to be done in normal order. they are the only people that understand what you're in those bills. >> to and if you really think we're going to jump off a fiscal cliff? >> i think it is at least that the tax cut scheduled to expire to expire. maybe slig
a budget deficit of $1.30 trillion and a $16 trillion debt. >> the question would be, is it worth not getting these benefits to the veterans if it means no more lard? >> what happens is those bills will be brought right back. they are popular pieces of legislation. people want to support veterans and they should. when this ad ran that claimed that i would deny care for veterans with missing limbs and legs, it did. it showed pictures of them. my father is a korean war veteran. my brother has done to terms -- tours in afghanistan, two in iraq. april white, when she saw that ad, she called our office and said that may be sick because when i cannot get the benefits i was due only one person without the and that was jeff flake. >> let's look at the facts. we can stipulate -- my father and uncle served in combat. my brother served 30 years and special forces. that is not the issue. the congressman is trying to evade the issue. there are three specific bills he voted against those issues. it is not only me. the iraqi-afghanistan veterans organization gave him an f. the vietnam veterans g
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)